--------------------
Lawyers have a stock in trade of evaluating argument and evidence across disciplines. They must represent clients and handle evidence in various fields and know how to put expert witnesses under questioning without themselves being experts. That's what they do. Biologists need have no similar training. Their intellectual expertise can be very narrow indeed.
The many scientists who walk into his logical traps prove themselves to understand neither credentialing, nor debate, nor logic.
When you say "formal understanding of logic" I suspect you mean "understanding of informal logic." But I'll wager most scientists have never studied either discipline, have no peer reviewed journal articles in either discipline and are really out of their depth in both respects.
Many scientists have taken courses in logic. It is a part of learning math.